Cost and the craving for novelty: Exploring motivations ...summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/17029/published_article_apjce_17_3... · Cost and the craving for novelty: Exploring

Cost and the craving for novelty: Exploring motivations

and barriers for cooperative education and exchange

students to go abroad

TANYA BEHRISCH1

Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

Canadian universities aim to increase student participation in international learning experiences through mobility

programs such as international co-op and academic exchange. According to the Canadian Bureau for International

Education (CBIE), 97% of Canadian universities offer education abroad programs, reflecting a pervasive belief that

international experiential learning is good for students as well as their home universities. Contrasting with this

international orientation, a relatively small percentage of students actually complete international co-op and exchange.

Research into what motivates or prevents students to undertake these somewhat risky ventures and knowledge of how

to increase students’ participation in these programs is limited. Business students at a single western Canadian

university were surveyed to gain insight into what motivates or prevents them from participating in international co-op

and exchange. (Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2016, 17(3), 279-294)

Keywords: Exchange, international, risk, motivations, barriers

This research aims to provide a deeper understanding of what engages cooperative

education and exchange students to go international within a Canadian university context.

Cooperative education (co-op) in Canada is accredited by the Canadian Association for Co-

operative Education and is defined by specific criteria, including work terms that relate to the

student’s field of study, are full-time, paid, supervised, and temporary. The term “co-op” is

widely used within the Canadian employer and post-secondary communities and in this

paper is in place of cooperative education.

Internationalization is central to the strategic vision of Simon Fraser University

(SFU). Branding itself the “engaged university,” SFU’s international engagement strategy

encourages the development of students into global citizens through curricular offerings

such as international course content, foreign language courses and experiential learning

programs, including international co-op, exchanges, and field schools. This global outlook is

replicated within the Faculty of Business, with the goal of increasing outbound international

student engagement. In North America, “Faculty” written with a capital “F,” refers to the

administrative unit encompassing a distinct academic discipline, such as the Faculty of

Business Administration. The word “faculty” written with a lower case “f” refers to

individual professors and researchers.

BACKGROUND

The benefits stemming from international experiential learning on students’ personal,

professional, and academic futures is documented by students, institutions, employers, the

media, and research literature (Altbach and Teichler 2001; Chalou and Gliozzo 2011; Coll and

Chapman 2001; Fugate and Jefferson 2001; Guest, Livett and Stone 2006; Pagano, and Roselle

2009; Stronkhorst 2005; Tiessen 2007; Fairhead 2012; Simon 2013; Supiano 2013). Stronkhorst

(2005, p. 292) states that:

The benefits of international mobility for students have been taken for granted….

Promotion of student mobility by institutions and policy makers was mainly based on

1 Corresponding author: Tanya Behrisch, [email protected]

http://www.sfu.ca/engage

BEHRISCH: Exploring motivations and barriers for cooperative education abroad

Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2016, 17(3), 279-294 280

the conviction that it would somehow be good for the future citizens and

professionals in an increasingly internationalized society.

Ahn (2014) notes that institutions are undergoing “increasing pressure … to further

internationalize education in order to remain competitive” (p. 106).

Several studies look at specific outcomes of mobility programs (Reinhard, Satow and Sisco,

2007; Ward and Laslett, 2004; Souto-Otero, Huisman, Beerkens, de Wit, Vijić (2013), including

the perceived benefits to students, universities and employers. Generally, outcomes for all

three partners are perceived to be positive or at least neutral, although Stronkhorst (2005)

identifies some negative outcomes following completion of mobility programs. Students’

motivations and rewards for engaging in mobility programs have been documented in

several international and academic contexts (Souto-Otero et. al., 2013; Ward and Laslett, 2004;

Reinhard et. al., 2007), which highlight the multifaceted nature of students’ decision-making

processes concerning whether to participate in a mobility program or stay home. Students’

desire for novelty and a superior educational experience appear to dominate their

motivations for undertaking international co-op or exchange. Like motivations, barriers

appear multifaceted, and more complex than the obvious problems of cost or students’ fear

of separation from family and friends. While cost is perceived to be a major barrier to

students’ participation (Wintre, Kandasamy, Chavoshi, & Wright, 2015; Souto-Otero et. al.,

2013), it is not the only barrier. Other barriers include students’ lack of language skills,

uncertainty about the benefits of mobility programs and family relationships. Within the

category of family relationships, parents play a significant role in influencing students’

educational pathways (Marat, Postlethwaite, Pelling, Qi, & Chand, 2008; Young, 2006;

Behrisch, 1995; Behrisch, Hayter and Barnes, 2002).

For the purpose of this paper, references to “internship” in the literature are broadly

interpreted as interchangeable with “co-op.” Roberts (1998) writes that participating in an

international internship program gives interns “a marvelous exposure to a range of cultural

experiences that they neither could anticipate prior to their placements nor could have

learned in a classroom” (p. 69). Stronkhorst (2005) notes that “international orientation is

appearing more frequently now in employability skills profiles” (p. 294). Reinhard et al.

(2007) point to improved communication and interpersonal skills as prime outcomes

stemming from international co-op placements. Exchange and international co-op students

often have the opportunity to learn a new language and add to their skill set; a student’s

network of contacts is broadened through the experience of going international.

International co-op students gain connections with employers with whom they may work in

the future. International co-op and outbound exchange provide students with opportunities

to travel, experience foreign cultures on a personal level, and earn or study while completing

academic credits towards their degree. Acquiring international experience has the added

benefit of distinguishing a student’s resume against someone else’s who has only local and

domestic experience.

The AUCC (p. 7, 2014) states that despite these myriad benefits, Canadian “outward student

mobility is still low: just 3.1% of full-time undergraduates (about 25,000) had an international

experience in 2012-13, and only 2.6% had a for-credit experience abroad …. Cost and

inflexible curricular or credit transfer policies are perceived as major barriers to greater

student participation.”



This paper aims to contribute to the literature on what distinguishes students who engage in

mobility programs, namely international co-op and exchange, from students who do not. It

also draws on research at a single western Canadian university in 2014, and provides a

starting point to explore specific themes more in depth.

STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CO-OP AND EXCHANGE AT SFU

Within the Beedie School of Business, hereon referred to as “Beedie,” the International

Experiential Learning Certificate was designed to increase student participation in

international programs. In 2015, Beedie had 40 preferred business partnerships with

international post-secondary institutions, leading to academic exchanges. Participation in

international co-op and outbound academic exchange for the 2014/2015 academic year is

reported in Table 1.

TABLE 1: Participation in international (int’l) programs within Beedie School of Business and

Simon Fraser University (SFU) in 2014/2015 (as a percentage)

Admin-

istrative

unit

Total un-

der-

graduate

population

% SFU

population

Number

students

participating

in int’l co-op

% total

participation

in

int’l co-op

Number

students

participating

in exchange

% total

participation

in exchange

Beedie 3,654 13 72 22 104 38

SFU 28,684 100 321 100 276 100

Source: Simon Fraser University Institutional Research and Planning, 2015.

While Beedie accounts for 13% of the university’s undergraduate population, it contributes

22% of international co-ops and 38% of exchanges across all Faculties. Beedie aims to

increase its students’ engagement in both areas.

Within the Beedie, international co-op and outbound exchange programs are structured and

resourced differently. Exchanges are managed centrally by one full-time staff member

dedicated to marketing and facilitating exchanges exclusively for Beedie undergraduates

with official school partners such as the University of Mannheim and Bocconi in Italy. These

placements are highly standardized, with set costs and transferable credits back to SFU.

Conversely, international co-op operates as a mixed model, with both centralized and

decentralized components. A co-op program for each Faculty (academic administrative unit)

is physically situated amongst staff and faculty (teaching and research professionals) offices

throughout the university. All program managers report to the Director of Work Integrated

Learning (WIL), including the program manager of Business Co-op. One full time

international co-op coordinator reports to the Director of WIL, working on behalf of all

Faculties in job development, risk management, and curriculum, which covers pre-departure,

work term support, and students’ return to Canada. Due to the vast scope of this position,

opportunities for intensive job development and engagement with students is limited.

International job development is shared between this central role and co-op coordinators

within eleven different Faculties, where an uneven distribution of international co-op

“champions” exists. These “champions” are coordinators who undertake international job

development on top of their generalist roles. Engagement in this area is dependent on a

coordinator’s personal interests, leading to the uneven distribution of international job

development and promotion across Faculties. Within Business Co-op, three staff members



actively promote international co-op to students and employers alongside local job

development and student engagement. With a disproportionately large percentage of the

university’s international co-op placements coming from Business (Table 1), this mixed

administrative structure seems to be working well.

Another contrast with exchange is that a large percentage of international co-op placements

are “one offs,” often developed by students themselves, occurring only once. As with local

placements, newly established employer relationships erode quickly without the infusion of

an in-person site visit with a co-op coordinator and subsequent student placements.

Ongoing relationships between co-op coordinators and recruiters at corporations such as

HSBC, SAP and Adidas provide ongoing placements. Like all long-term relationships,

regular follow-up is essential.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Four main questions emerged when designing the research:

1. What factors influence students to complete an international co-op or exchange?

2. What factors prevent students from completing an international co-op or exchange?

3. Are there similar characteristics between students completing international co-op

and those completing exchange?

4. Are there ways to more effectively engage students in these experiences?

The researcher’ vast involvement in international co-op led to four hypotheses regarding

research outcomes, particularly around students’ family background. For the purpose of this

study, aspects of students’ family background included parents’ expectations, parents’ and

students’ citizenship (visa status), number of languages spoken at home, and students’ desire

to return to their home country.

HYPOTHESES

1. Family background influences students’ choices to go abroad for co-op or exchange.

2. Family background influences students’ choices to opt out of going aboard for co-op

or exchange.

3. Students who complete an international co-op or exchange are influenced by the

same factors in choosing to participate in these programs.

4. Students who have not completed an international co-op or exchange are prevented

from doing so by the same barriers.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This was an exploratory quantitative study of a new topic involving both research questions

and hypotheses. The sample population was drawn from the SFU Beedie School of Business

in which the researcher works directly with undergraduates. All further references to

students here are to undergraduate students within the SFU Beedie School of Business,

which is synonymous with the Faculty of Business.

Like Stronkhorst’s (2005) research into learning outcomes following internship and exchange

programs, this study examined both international co-op and exchange as mobility programs

of interest. While Beedie produces a disproportionately large share of the university’s

international placements in both co-op and exchange (Table 1), actual numbers of students



going abroad is small. Combining international co-op and exchange in this study enabled

the researcher to increase the sample size, and increased the likelihood of statistical

significance of results.

Since this research involved a survey of human participants, a full ethics review was

undertaken. Following approval by the SFU Department of Research Ethics, a survey

containing 40 questions was sent as an electronic link to all 3821 students taking an

undergraduate business course in October 2014. The survey assured students that their

participation was voluntary, anonymous and would not affect their grades. Participants

were invited to voluntarily enter their names in a draw for a Starbucks gift card.

By February 2015, 232 respondents had participated in the survey. Of these, 163 fully

completed the survey and indicated they were approved Business majors. Findings were

based on this sample of 163 respondents. Statistics were based on a 95% confidence interval

(P values of less than 0.05) using the chi square test for all analyses. This is a measure of

statistical significance, indicating whether the relationship between two variables is

consistent enough that it is unlikely to be a coincidence (Boudah, 2011).

RESULTS

The sample was categorized into three distinct groups: students who completed at least one

international co-op, students who completed at least one outbound academic exchange and

students who completed neither program. These distinct cohorts will be referred to as

“international co-op completers,” “exchange completers” and “neither-completers.” Basic

demographic data about each group is shown in Table 2.

The number of credit hours required to graduate with an undergraduate degree at SFU is

120. Credit hour completion was divided into three categories: high (≥90), intermediate (66-

89) and low (≤ 45). Students’ grades were reported as a Cumulative Grade Point Average

(CGPA), ranging from 0.00 to 4.33, with the highest attainable CGPA at SFU being 4.33, an

A+.

TABLE 2: Demographic data of sample population expressed as a percentage (n=163)

Group

Full

sample

population

International

co-op

completers

Exchange

completers

Neither-

completers

Female

65 53 68 65

Male

35 47 32 35

High credit hours completed (≥90)

50 88 68 41

Intermediate credit hours complet-

ed (66-89)

34 12 29 38

Low credit hours completed (≤ 45)

16 0 3 21

Possessed student visa (not Cana-

dian or Permanent Resident)

12 18 9 14

At least one parent immigrated to

Canada

76 71 74 76

High cumulative grade point aver-

age (≥ 3.00)

69 82 82 64



Completed at least one internation-

al co-op work term & no ex-

change

7 100 0 0

Completed at least one exchange &

no international co-op

17 0 100 0

Completed at least one internation-

al co-op and one exchange

4 39 29 0

Completed neither international co-

op nor exchange

72 0 0 100

Risk Tolerance

Risk tolerance has been explored through entrepreneurial, internship and academic lenses by

Brockhaus (1980), Moghaddam (2009) and Reimers-Hild et. al., (2005). Moghaddam (2009)

applies Brockhaus’ (1980) definition of a person’s propensity for risk taking as “the perceived

probability of receiving rewards associated with the success of a situation that is required by

the individual before he will subject himself to the consequences associated with failure, the

alternative situation providing less reward as well as less severe consequences than the

proposed situation” (p. 2). Moghaddam examines how the personality trait of risk tolerance

influences expectations for future internship experiences. Research on international mobility

programs has looked at the connection between students’ risk tolerance and perception of

risk to their decisions about whether to participate or not (Souto-Otero et. al., 2013; Wintre et

al. 2015; Moghaddam, 2009; Reimers-Hild et al., 2005). Reimers-Hild et. al., (2005) propose

that students’ risk taking and entrepreneurial propensities can impact their success at goal

attainment.

Research for this paper examined Beedie students’ tolerance for risk through self-reporting.

No specific risk analysis tool or framework was used to measure or qualify students’ risk

tolerance. Students reported their risk tolerance and perceived risk of international co-op

and exchange based on their own personal definition of risk. Following Brockhaus’ (1980)

definition of risk tolerance, for this paper, students with a “high” or “very high” risk

tolerance would be those more comfortable with the consequences of failing to reach their

goal than those with neutral, low or very low tolerance for risk.

Three questions relating to risk were included in the survey:

1. What is your tolerance level for risk in trying new things?

2. What level of risk does international co-op represent to you?

3. What level of risk does exchange represent to you?

The range of possible answers included: very high, high, neutral, low, very low, and not sure.

Students’ risk tolerance is reported in Table 3.

International co-op completers reported the highest proportion with a “very high” risk

tolerance, followed by exchange completers, followed by the full sample population.

Neither-completers reported the lowest proportion with a “very high” risk tolerance.



TABLE 3: Risk tolerance of sample expressed as a percentage (n=163)

Risk tolerance

Sample

population

International

co-op completers

Exchange

completers

Neither-

completers

Very high 20 47 21 18

High 38 35 45 36

Neutral 30 6 28 32

Low 9 12 6 10

Very low 2 0 0 2

Unsure 1 0 0 2

Perceived Risk of International Co-op and Exchange

Tables 4 and 5 compare the risk perceptions of international co-op and exchange completers

with non-completers.

TABLE 4: Students’ perceived risk of international co-op expressed as a percentage (n=163)

Perceived risk International co-op completers Did not complete international co-

op

High to very high 41 48

Neutral 53 32

Low to very low 6 17

Unsure 0 3

Overall, non-completers of international co-op were more likely to perceive the risk of

international co-op to be “high” or “very high.” The majority of international co-op

completers, having undergone the actual experience, were more likely to perceive the risk as

neutral.

TABLE 5: Students’ perceived risk of exchange expressed as a percentage (n=163)

Perceived risk Exchange completers Did not complete exchange

High to very high 15 34

Neutral 40 37

Low to very low 45 27

Unsure 0 2

Alternately, exchange was perceived to be a neutral to very low risk, especially by exchange

completers. Non-completers of exchange were more likely to perceive exchange as “high” to

“very high” risk than exchange completers (Table 5).

Overall, international co-op was perceived to be riskier than exchange. One probable

explanation for this may be the embedded nature of exchange in the undergraduate business

curriculum and its highly regulated partnerships with other schools. This regulation lends

exchanges a more controlled image than international co-ops, many of which are unique. A

statistically significant relationship was found between perceived risk of international co-op

and perceived risk of exchange (Table 6).



TABLE 6: Perceived risk of international co-op versus perceived risk of exchange expressed

as a percentage

Perceived

risk of

international

co-op

Perceived

risk of

exchange

very high

Perceived

risk of

exchange

high

Perceived

risk of

exchange

neutral

Perceived

risk of

exchange

low

Perceived

risk of

exchange

very low

Not

Sure

Very high 29* 50 14 7 0 0

High 7 43* 40 10 0 0

Neutral 2 10 49 25 14 0

Low 0 0 29 50* 14 7

Very low 0 0 17 17 66* 0

Not sure 0 0 50 25 0 25 Χ²(25, N=153)=121, p <0.001. Data points with the * symbol are statistically significantly higher than expected in a

randomly selected sample.

Findings suggest that the sample population perceived risk level associated with

international co-op to be the same as exchange. A significant relationship exists between

students' risk tolerance and their perceived risk of international co-op. A statistically high

percentage of students who rated their risk tolerance as “low” perceive the risk of

international co-op to be “very high”. A striking 100% of respondents who have a “very

low” tolerance for risk perceive the risk of international co-op to be “high.” This relationship

was not replicated for exchanges (Table 7).

TABLE 7: Risk tolerance versus perceived risk of international co-op expressed as a

percentage

Student’s

risk

tolerance

Perceived

risk very

high

Perceived

risk high

Perceived

risk neu-

tral

Perceived

risk low

Perceived

risk very

low

Not

Sure

Very high 9 24 46 6 15 0

High 7 37 37 8 10 1

Neutral 4 50 30 9 0 7

Low 33* 40 13 13 0 0

Very low 0 100 0 0 0 0

Not sure 0 0 0 50 50 0 Χ²(25, N=160)=44.8, p <0.01. The data point with the * symbol is statistically significantly higher than expected in a


Motivations

Completers of international co-op and exchange indicated what influenced them to

undertake either program. Results are shown in Table 8.

“Opportunity to travel” and “meet new people” topped both international co-op and

exchange completers lists of motivations (Table 8), both of which fall under the rubric of

“novelty,” rather than academic achievement or credentialism. The only notable divergence

at the top of the list between completers of either program was the category “want an

international career” where a significant 24% more international co-op completers than

exchange completers rated this as having “high” to “great importance.” Statistically, the 83%

response rate of international co-op completers in this category was significantly higher than

expected, suggesting that a student's completion of international co-op was correlated with



attaining an international career. This was not the case for exchange completers, suggesting

that exchange was less associated with an international career than international co-op.

“Changing my routine,” which ranked fifth on international co-op completers’ list and fourth

for exchange completers, aligned with what appeared to be students’ hunger for novelty.

TABLE 8: Students’ motivations for completing international co-op or exchange, expressed

as a percentage

Motivation to complete

program

International co-op

completers

Exchange complet-

ers

Opportunity to travel 89 91

Meet new people 89 82

Want international career 83 59

Get international experience on resume 78 77

Change my routine 67 68

Improve my language skills 50 44

Someone I know had a good experience 35 68

Want International Experience Certificate 17 27

Return to my home region 18 3

Other 20 13

Escape my parents 11 24

Meet my parents’ expectations 0 0

It was expected that students would be influenced by their parents and peers in choosing to

complete either program. However, respondents reported a statistically significant lower

than expected response to “someone I know had a good experience” as a reason to complete an

international co-op. Peer influence showed no statistical relationship with exchange

completion (Table 8). Other notable findings include the zero response rate among both

groups to “meet my parents’ expectations.” Nearly a quarter of exchange completers

reported wanting to escape their parents, whereas only 11% of international co-op completers

reported being influenced by this. Parents appeared to be a relatively small influence on why

international co-op and exchange completers undertake these programs. Rather, travel,

meeting new people, forging an international career, and changing their routines were major

motivations.

Barriers

Non-completers were asked to identify barriers preventing them from completing an

international co-op or exchange. Respondents’ perceived barriers to each program were

similar (Table 9).

Cost was the number one barrier in both groups. This finding aligns with the Canadian

Bureau of International Education, which found that in going abroad for education, “the top

barrier to participation for Canadian students remains financial” (Canadian Bureau for

International Education, 2015). The salary associated with an international co-op somewhat

offsets this barrier, offering a possible explanation for the slightly lower response rate in this

category than exchange (Table 9). However, substantial grants and bursaries available for

both international co-op and exchange often go without applicants, indicating that students’

financial limitations may be more of a complex barrier than a dollar amount.



TABLE 9: Barriers preventing student from completing international co-op or exchange,

expressed as a percentage

Barrier to completing program International co-op Exchange

Too expensive 62 70

Would extend my degree too

much 34 36

Seems difficult to achieve 31 22

Other 18 21

Didn’t want to leave home 15 12

Someone I know had a bad

experience 12 12

Not interested in this

experience 12 16

Meet my parents’ expectations 8 4

Discouraged by staff or faculty 12 12

I applied but was not

successful 7 5

The second biggest barrier for both programs was the perception that international co-op and

exchange would extend a student’s “degree by too much time.” The reality is that exchange

students receive the same credits for courses taken on exchange as they do for courses at

home. An international co-op work term receives the same additive credit on a student’s

transcript as a domestic work term. Therefore, this perception may not be based on a full

understanding of facts by students. Alarmingly, over 11% of neither-completers reported

being discouraged by staff or faculty from completing either mobility program.

Student Seniority

Students’ seniority, quantified by number of credit hours completed, showed the strongest

statistical correlation with completion of either program than any other factor (Table 10).

TABLE 10: Number of credit hours completed versus completion of international co-op

expressed as a percentage

Number of credit hours

completed

Completed

international co-op

Did not complete

international co-op

90+ 18* 82

46 - 89 4 96

≤ 45 0 100* Χ²(2, N=163)=11.5, p <0.01 Data points with the * symbol are statistically significantly higher than expected in a


Higher than expected numbers of senior students (≥90 credit hours) completed international

co-op and exchange (Tables 10 and 11). This suggests that both programs were the domain of

senior students; this relationship was especially strong for international co-op completers

(Table 10). One third of exchanges were completed by intermediate students (45 – 89 credit

hours), whereas only 12% of international co-ops were completed by intermediate students

(Table 2). For neither-completers, credit hours were more evenly distributed between junior,



intermediate and senior students, quantified by ≤45, 46-89, ≥90 credit hours respectively

(Table 2).

TABLE 11: Number of credit hours completed versus completion of exchange expressed as a

percentage


completed

Completed exchange Did not complete exchange

90+ 28* 72

46 - 89 18 82

≤ 45 4 96* Χ²(2, N=163)=7.65, p <0.05. Data points with the * symbol are statistically significantly higher than expected in a


Three quarters (75%) of neither-completers wished they could complete international co-op

or exchange. In addition, higher than expected numbers of respondents indicated the same

wish about both programs, rather than different wishes regarding each program. Those who

wished to complete one program were more likely to wish they could complete the other

program. Conversely, those who indicated no wish to complete one program were more

likely to indicate no wish to complete the other program (Table 12).

TABLE 12: Respondents wish to complete international co-op versus wish to complete

exchange as a percentage

Wish to complete program Wish to complete

exchange

No wish to complete

exchange

Wish to complete

international co-op

88* 12

No wish to complete

international co-op

44 53*

Χ²(1, N=124)=23.1, p <0.001. Data points with the * symbol are statistically significantly higher than expected in a


Looking more closely at the breakdown of students who wish to do either program, a

statistically significant relationship was found between number of credit hours completed

and respondents’ wish to complete international co-op (Table 13).

TABLE 13: Credit hours completed versus students’ wish complete international co-op


completed

Wish to complete

international co-op

No wish to complete

international co-op

90+ 67 33*

46 - 89 83 17

≤ 45 92* 8 Χ²(2, N=142)=8.43, p <0.05 Data points with the * symbol are statistically significantly higher than expected in a


There appeared to be an inverse relationship: the higher a student’s credit hours, the less

likely their wish to complete an international co-op. This suggests that the dream of

international co-op was more alive in junior students (≤45 credit hours completed) whose

academic futures were still forming. No such relationship was found with exchange.



STUDENTS RECOMMENDED ACTIONS TO INCREASE ENGAGEMENT

Respondents identified actions they felt would increase student engagement in both

international co-op and exchange. Providing “more financial assistance” topped

respondents’ lists for both programs (Table 14).

TABLE 14: Students’ recommend how to increase participation in international co-op and

exchange as a percentage.

Recommended action International co-op Exchange

Provide more financial assistance 45 56

Increase number of opportunities 23 12

Promote opportunities to students earlier

in degree 23 23

Promote international co-op & exchange

together 3 2

Share student successes earlier in program 3 3

Increase number of staff in this area 1 1

Since financial awards often close with no applicants, more research is needed about what

specific financial assistance is needed.

DISCUSSION

This research focused on one Faculty (Business) at a single western Canadian university.

Therefore, findings have limited application to a wider context and cannot be extrapolated

beyond the sample population that participated in this research. However, the results reveal

some surprising trends within the undergraduate Business student population at SFU, and

offer useful discussion points about how Co-op practitioners frame mobility programs when

marketing to students.

Students’ desire for novelty, specified by “opportunity to travel,” “meet new people,” and to

a lesser extent, “change my routine,” appeared to be an important motivator for going

abroad. Students’ desire for novelty overshadowed the influence of family background and

parents’ expectations. Family background included students’ and parents’ citizenship and

immigration status, parents’ expectations, students’ desire to escape their parents, a desire to

return to their home region, and the number of languages spoken in the home. No

correlation appeared between these factors and students’ decisions to complete international

co-op or exchange. These findings negated the researcher’s first two hypotheses about the

role of family in students’ decision-making. Gender and grade point average also appeared

to have no relationship with completion of international co-op or exchange.

Three statistically significant correlations with international co-op and exchange program

completion emerged:

a) number of credit hours completed

b) students’ tolerance for risk, and

c) students’ perceived risk of international co-op and exchange

Within Beedie, international co-op and exchange appeared to be the domain of senior

students, those with 90+ credit hours completed, the equivalent of 75% of degree

requirements. The data suggests that as Beedie students progress through their degrees and



complete more credit hours, they become less interested in completing an international co-

op. The same trend was not found for exchange, which appeared to retain its appeal to

students throughout their degrees. While completion of both international co-op and

exchange was largely the domain of senior undergraduates, messaging and addressing

students’ perceived barriers should happen early in their degrees while students are still

receptive and their undergraduate plans are still malleable.

Students’ risk tolerance was explored using students’ self-reporting of their tolerance for

trying new things. International co-op appeared to attract students with a “very high” risk

tolerance. Exchange appeared to attract students with a “high” risk tolerance. Neither-

completers reported the largest percentage of “neutral” risk tolerance. International co-op

was perceived to be riskier than exchange, which, given the embedded nature of exchange

and students’ early exposure to exchange opportunities in the undergraduate curriculum, is

understandable. While the researchers’ first two hypotheses were negated by findings, the

third and fourth hypotheses were supported by students’ responses: in reporting on their

decisions to go abroad for co-op or exchange or to stay home, respondents indicated the

same top motivations for both programs, as well as the same barriers.

This research led to some unexpected revelations about the roles of novelty and risk relating

to mobility programs. “Risk” and “novelty” are not traditional program attributes marketed

by SFU or other public post-secondary institutions in Canada. In fact, risk is usually

something administrators strive to minimize and manage. Yet an element of risk may be the

very thing that appeals to adventurous undergrads looking to break out of predictable and

over-packed course timetables. Findings suggest that students with a higher risk tolerance

could be a strategic target population to engage in international co-op and exchange. The

majority of international co-op and exchange completers at Beedie rate their international

learning experiences as having “much” or “extreme value” to their future career prospects.

This could be useful in marketing to students.

This study raises questions such as, “could these findings be replicated at other universities

and if so, what does it mean for co-op and exchange practitioners?” These insights invite

Work Integrated Learning and Beedie professionals to look more deeply at how we frame

our mobility programs as part of undergraduates’ educational experience at SFU. Rather

than marketing the benefits of career or academic spin-offs of either program, perhaps

promoting novelty would gain more traction with students. In addition, how can

practitioners identify students with a higher risk tolerance? This may yield greater uptake in

either program.

Cost emerged as the primary barrier preventing students from completing either

international co-op or exchange. However, awards often close with no applicants. Two

complicating factors relating to cost may be low student awareness of awards and the limited

range of eligible costs covered by awards. For example, paying the penalty for curtailing a

rental lease in Vancouver early and paying a damage deposit upon returning to Canada are

not eligible costs covered under the international co-op award. Students’ decision-making

around the cost of participating in either of these mobility programs was likely more

complex than simply looking at the dollar amount of participating. Further research is

needed to find out what specific costs are preventing students from participating in these

programs.



Another area warranting further study is students’ perception that these mobility programs

would extend their degrees by too much time. Aside from the exceptions of a third year

business communications course and accounting courses, all undergraduate exchange

business courses transfer back to SFU and take the same time to complete as courses at

Beedie. In addition, four, eight or twelve months of international co-op is equal in duration

to four, eight or twelve months of co-op locally or elsewhere in Canada. Therefore, students’

reservations about extending their degrees should be addressed early, when they are still

receptive to either program.

Respondents reported that Beedie promotes exchange more effectively than international co-

op but that both areas could be marketed more effectively. This finding offers an

opportunity to improve how we position international co-op and exchange in students’

educational experience at Beedie and SFU. Follow up at administrative level is needed to

discover why some unidentified staff and faculty are actively discouraging students from

participating in international co-op and exchange.

This research added new insights to literature looking at why some students go abroad for

co-op and exchange and why many do not. Findings around students’ risk tolerance and

perception of risk build on existing literature in different international experiential learning

contexts (Reimers-Hild et al., 2005; Souto-Otero et. al., 2013; Wintre et. al., 2015;

Moghaddam, 2009).

CONCLUSION

This research highlights issues related to risk that require further inquiry. A deeper analysis

of students’ risk tolerance and perception of risk associated with international co-op and

exchange may help illuminate what types of risks matter most to students when deciding to

undertake an international learning experience. Risk can be broken down into categories

such as health and safety, financial risk, and fear of the unknown. Research into risk

categories would facilitate a finer understanding of what specific barriers hold students back

from participating.. A retrospective study on whether perceived risks of an international

experience actually manifest themselves would strengthen practitioners’ understanding and

ability to help students overcome reservations, some of which may not be grounded in

reality. An evaluation of whether students assign more value to risky experiences than non-

risky experiences would augment current research and literature on this topic. In conclusion,

risk takers are key participants in international co-op and exchange. Identifying risk takers

early in their degrees may facilitate greater uptake in both programs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincere thanks to CAFCE (Canadian Association for Co-operative Education) for the 2014

research grant and to SFU Business Co-op Program Manager Shauna Tonsaker, Associate

Dean of Business Andrew Gemino, Rosanne Ng, the Beedie Student Engagement Office,

Beedie undergraduate students, and my two pre-reviewers Nancy Johnston and Andrea

Sator for supporting this research.

REFERENCES

Ahn, S. (2014). A good learning opportunity, but is it for me? A study of Swedish students’ attitudes

towards exchange studies in high education. Journal of Research in International Education, 13(2),

106-118.



Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and exchanges in a globalized university.

Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5-25. doi: 10.1177/102831530151002

AUCC (2014). Canada’s universities in the world: AUCC internationalization survey 2014. Retrieved from

https://www.univcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/internationalization-survey-2014.pdf

Behrisch, T. (1995). Preparing for work: A case study of secondary school students in Powell River, British

Columbia (Master’ thesis). Retrieved from Dept. of Geography, Simon Fraser University.

Behrisch, T., Hayter, R., & Barnes, T. (2002). "I don't really like the mill; in fact, I hate the mill": Changing

youth vocationalism under Fordism and post-Fordism in Powell River, British Columbia. BC

Studies: The British Columbian Quarterly, (136), 73-101. Retrieved from

http://www.canlitsubmit.ca/index.php/bcstudies/article/viewFile/1651/1696

Boudah, D. J. (2011). Conducting educational research: Guide to completing a major project. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3),

509-520. doi: 10.2307/255515

Canadian Bureau for International Education (2015). Canada’s performance and potential in international

education 2015. Retrieved from http://www.cbie.ca/about-ie/facts-and-figures/#_ednref8

Chalou, C., & Gliozzo, C. (2011). Why international internships are key to university global engagement.

The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Why-International-

Internships/126505/

Coll, R., & Chapman, R. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of international co-op placements: The

students’ perspective. Journal of Co-operative Education, 35(2), 95-105. Retrieved from

http://dev.creatingwow.com/journal/journal_documents/3522000CollRAdvantages.pdf

Fairhead, J. (2012, October 29). 10 Reasons to do an international internship. Intern China. Retrieved

from http://internchina.com/10-reasons-to-do-an-international-internship/

Fugate, D. L., & Jefferson, R. W. (2001). International perspective: Preparing for globalization—do we

need structural change for our academic programs? Journal of Education for Business, 76(3), 160-

166. doi:10.1080/08832320109601304

Guest, D., Livett, M., & Stone, N. (2006). Fostering international student exchanges for science students.

Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 378-395. doi: 10.1177/1028315306287632

Marat, D., Postlethwaite, M., Pelling, N., Qi, Z., & Chand, P. (2008). Whāia te iti Kahurangi-in pursuit of

excellence student efficacies, agency and achievement in early years tertiary education: an

applied technology perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 9(1), 45‐58. Retrieved

from http://www.apjce.org/files/APJCE_09_1_45_58.pdf

Moghaddam, J.M. (2009). Acquiring career preparation skills through internship: Students’ expectations

and personality traits. California Journal of Operations Management, 7(1), 100-109. Retrieved from

http://www.csupom.org/PUBLICATIONS/2009/2009-12.pdf

Pagano, N., & Roselle, L. (2009). Beyond reflection through an academic lens: Refraction and

international experiential education. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18,

217-229. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ883699.pdf

Reimers-Hild, C., King, J. W., Foster, J. E., Fritz, S. M., Waller, S. S., & Wheeler, D. W. (2005). A

framework for the “entrepreneurial” learner of the 21st century. Online Journal of Distance

Learning Administration, 8(2). Retrieved from

http://distance.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer82/hild82.htm

Reinhard, K., Satow, L., & Sisco, L. (2007). Internationalizing cooperative education: An introduction to

the Berufsakademie Ravensburg’s work-integrated cooperative education partnership with the

multinational company SAP Incorporation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 8(2), 109-

119.

Roberts, E. H. (1998). The innocents abroad: Do students face international internships unprepared?

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 64-69.

Simon, C. C. (2013, January 30). The world is their workplace. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/education/edlife/the-world-is-their-

workplace.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Simon Fraser University Institutional Research and Planning (2015). Fingertip statistics. Retrieved from

http://www.sfu.ca/irp/fingertip-statistics.html

http://jsi.sagepub.com/content/5/1/5.full.pdf+html

https://www.univcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/internationalization-survey-2014.pdf

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-International-Internships/126505/

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-International-Internships/126505/

http://internchina.com/10-reasons-to-do-an-international-internship/

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08832320109601304

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08832320109601304


http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ883699.pdf

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ883699.pdf

http://distance.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer82/hild82.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/education/edlife/the-world-is-their-workplace.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/education/edlife/the-world-is-their-workplace.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

http://www.sfu.ca/irp/fingertip-statistics.html



Souto-Otero, M., Huisman, J., Beerkens, M., de Wit, H., Vijić, S. (2013). Barriers to international student

mobility: Evidence from the Erasmus program. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 70-77.

Stronkhorst, R. (2005). Learning outcomes of international mobility at two Dutch institutes of higher

education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(4), 292-315.

doi: 10.1177/1028315305280938

Supiano, B. (2013, March 4). Students and employers are at odds on how college can spark a career. The

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/A-College-Degree-Sorts-

Job/137625/#id=mismatch

Tiessen, R. (2007). Educating global citizens? Canadian foreign policy and youth study/volunteer abroad

programs. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 14(1) 77-84. doi: 10.1080/11926422.2007.9673453

Ward, N. I., & Laslett, R. L. (2004). International cooperative education student exchange program:

Lessons from the chemistry experience. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 5(2), 19-26.

Wintre, M. G., Kandasamy, A. R., Chavoshi, S., & Wright, L. (2015). Are international undergraduate

students emerging adults? Motivations for studying abroad. Emerging Adulthood, 3(4), 255-264.

Young Jr, W. W. (2006). Parent expectations of collegiate teaching and caring (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from Open Access Theses and Dissertations from the College of Education and Human

Sciences, 6.



http://chronicle.com/article/A-College-Degree-Sorts-Job/137625/#id=mismatch

http://chronicle.com/article/A-College-Degree-Sorts-Job/137625/#id=mismatch

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/11926422.2007.9673453

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/11926422.2007.9673453

About the Journal

The Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education publishes peer-reviewed original research, topical issues, and best

practice articles from throughout the world dealing with Cooperative Education (Co-op) and Work-Integrated

Learning/Education (WIL).

In this Journal, Co-op/WIL is defined as an educational approach that uses relevant work-based projects that form an

integrated and assessed part of an academic program of study (e.g., work placements, internships, practicum). These

programs should have clear linkages with, or add to, the knowledge and skill base of the academic program. These

programs can be described by a variety of names, such as cooperative and work-integrated education, work-based

learning, workplace learning, professional training, industry-based learning, engaged industry learning, career and

technical education, internships, experiential education, experiential learning, vocational education and training,

fieldwork education, and service learning.

The Journal’s main aim is to allow specialists working in these areas to disseminate their findings and share their

knowledge for the benefit of institutions, co-op/WIL practitioners, and researchers. The Journal desires to encourage

quality research and explorative critical discussion that will lead to the advancement of effective practices, development

of further understanding of co-op/WIL, and promote further research.

Submitting Manuscripts

Before submitting a manuscript, please unsure that the ‘instructions for authors’ has been followed

(www.apjce.org/instructions-for-authors). All manuscripts are to be submitted for blind review directly to the Editor-in-

Chief ([email protected]) by way of email attachment. All submissions of manuscripts must be in Microsoft Word format,

with manuscript word counts between 3,000 and 5,000 words (excluding references).

All manuscripts, if deemed relevant to the Journal’s audience, will be double-blind reviewed by two or more reviewers.

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal with authors names included with have the authors’ names removed by the Editor-

in-Chief before being reviewed to ensure anonymity.

Typically, authors receive the reviewers’ comments about 1.5 months after the submission of the manuscript. The Journal

uses a constructive process for review and preparation of the manuscript, and encourages its reviewers to give supportive

and extensive feedback on the requirements for improving the manuscript as well as guidance on how to make the

amendments.

If the manuscript is deemed acceptable for publication, and reviewers’ comments have been satisfactorily addressed, the

manuscript is prepared for publication by the Copy Editor. The Copy Editor may correspond with the authors to check

details, if required. Final publication is by discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. Final published form of the manuscript is via

the Journal website (www.apjce.org), authors will be notified and sent a PDF copy of the final manuscript. There is no

charge for publishing in APJCE and the Journal allows free open access for its readers.

Types of Manuscripts Sought by the Journal

Types of manuscripts the Journal accepts are primarily of two forms; research reports describing research into aspects of

Cooperative Education and Work Integrated Learning/Education, and topical discussion articles that review relevant

literature and give critical explorative discussion around a topical issue.

The Journal does also accept best practice papers but only if it present a unique or innovative practice of a Co-op/WIL

program that is likely to be of interest to the broader Co-op/WIL community. The Journal also accepts a limited number of

Book Reviews of relevant and recently published books.

Research reports should contain; an introduction that describes relevant literature and sets the context of the inquiry, a

description and justification for the methodology employed, a description of the research findings-tabulated as

appropriate, a discussion of the importance of the findings including their significance for practitioners, and a conclusion

preferably incorporating suggestions for further research.

Topical discussion articles should contain a clear statement of the topic or issue under discussion, reference to relevant

literature, critical discussion of the importance of the issues, and implications for other researchers and practitioners.

http://www.apjce.org/instructions-for-authors

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.apjce.org/


EDITORIAL BOARD

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Karsten Zegwaard University of Waikato, New Zealand

Copy Editor

Yvonne Milbank Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education

Editorial Board Members

Ms. Diana Ayling Unitec, New Zealand

Mr. Matthew Campbell Queensland Institute of Business and Technology,

Australia

Dr. Sarojni Choy Griffith University, Australia

Prof. Richard K. Coll University of South Pacific, Fiji

Prof. Rick Cummings Murdoch University, Australia

Prof. Leigh Deves Charles Darwin University, Australia

Dr. Maureen Drysdale University of Waterloo, Canada

Dr. Chris Eames University of Waikato, New Zealand

Mrs. Sonia Ferns Curtin University, Australia

Dr. Jenny Fleming Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

Dr. Phil Gardner Michigan State University

Dr. Thomas Groenewald University of South Africa, South Africa

Dr. Kathryn Hays Massey University, New Zealand

Prof. Joy Higgs Charles Sturt University, Australia

Ms. Katharine Hoskyn Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

Dr. Sharleen Howison Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand

Dr. Denise Jackson Edith Cowan University, Australia

Dr. Nancy Johnston Simon Fraser University, Canada

Dr. Mark Lay University of Waikato, New Zealand

Assoc. Prof. Andy Martin Massey University, New Zealand

Ms. Susan McCurdy University of Waikato, New Zealand

Dr. Norah McRae University of Victoria, Canada

Dr. Keri Moore Southern Cross University, Australia

Prof. Beverly Oliver Deakin University, Australia

Assoc. Prof. Janice Orrell Flinders University, Australia

Dr. Deborah Peach Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Mrs. Judene Pretti Waterloo University, Canada

Dr. David Skelton Eastern Institute of Technology, New Zealand

Prof. Heather Smigiel Flinders University, Australia

Dr. Calvin Smith Brisbane Workplace Mediations, Australia

Prof. Neil Taylor University of New England, Australia

Ms. Susanne Taylor University of Johannesburg, South Africa

Assoc. Prof. Franziska Trede Charles Sturt University, Australia

Ms. Genevieve Watson Elysium Associates Pty, Australia

Prof. Neil I. Ward University of Surrey, United Kingdom

Dr. Nick Wempe Whitireia Community Polytechnic, New Zealand

Dr. Marius L. Wessels Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa

Dr. Theresa Winchester-Seeto Charles Sturt University, Australia

Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education

www.apjce.org

Publisher: New Zealand Association for Cooperative Education



Documents

Cost and the craving for novelty: Exploring motivations ...summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/17029/published_article_apjce_17_3... · Cost and the craving for novelty: Exploring